 |
| Being mad at all the Meanies |
On July 31, 2017, in front of the Honorable Avern Cohn at the United States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Layfayette Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, Room 225, at 11:00 a.m. there will be two motion hearings on Tran,
et al., v. Detroit Land Bank Authority,
et al.
The first will be a
Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney, Crystal Hopkins.
The second will be a
Motion of one of the Defendants.
This case deals with the
False Claims Act.
See, it goes like this.
In order to be a whistleblower and force the U.S. Department of Justice to go after fraud under the FCA when no other federal agency will, or no one else will do it due to lack of knowledge, resources and basic political will, you must have an attorney because there is
no pro se in qui tam.
In this case, the attorney, Crystal Hopkins filed notice of appearance on behalf of the
pro se litigant.
Well, not trying to spoil the story, but it seems Crystal Hopkins thought it was more profitable to work with the defendant and its legal counsel and let the case get dismissed instead of just amending the complaint.
In order to find another attorney, Crystal Hopkins was supposed to petition the Court for grant of leave to lift the seal to speak to another attorney to replace her.
She refused to do anything.
That was very mean.
See, neither does the FCA provide for the right for the
relator to file anything into the docket, including a response to Ms. Hopkins' motion to remove herself as attorney, of which she seems to be bereft of the procedural acumen of the Act.
Now, since I am statutorily disallowed to communicate to the court, I decided to take a global initiative and preserve the annals of history, preserve the public record, and speak directly to the international communities who have current and future concerns in this subject matter,
via the internet.
As to the second motion to be heard, there is a bit of an issue.
Ms. Hopkins was notified that there is an inherent conflict of interest with the defendant attorney representing Title Source, Inc., Reggie Turner, but chose to do nothing, again.
Reggie Turner was mean to my friend.
Reggie Turner was mean to me.
Reggie Turner hooked up with Cynthia Martin in being mean to my friend.
Reggie Turner and Cynthia Martin were mean to my friend and me.
Reggie Turner, Cynthia Martin, and a few others, did really bad things to lots and lots of people.
So, I decided to make sure Reggie Turner and Cynthia Martin were in the annals of history, oh, and Crystal Hopkins, too!
Ethics panel: Rep. Conyers under investigation
Office of Congressional Ethics Referral Regarding Ms. Cynthia Martin
On October 13, 2016, the Office of Congressional Ethics transmitted a referral to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives regarding Ms. Cynthia Martin.
Nature of the Review
From May 2013 to September 2014, Cynthia Martin may have misappropriated $16,500 that was mistakenly transferred into her Congressional Federal Credit Union bank account. Subsequent to notification by both bank representatives and law enforcement, Ms. Martin initially refused to return the funds to their rightful owner. On March 30, 2016, Ms. Martin pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor under Washington, DC law. If Ms. Martin wrongfully obtained the property of another, then she may have violated Washington DC law, House rules, and standards of conduct.
From April to August 2016, Cynthia Martin received compensation from the House of Representatives at a time when she may no longer have been working for the House. If Ms. Martin accepted compensation that was not commensurate with the work she was performing, then she may have violated House rules and standards of conduct.
OCE Recommendation
The Board recommended that the Committee on Ethics further review the allegation that Cynthia Martin violated Washington, DC law, House rules, and standards of conduct, as there is substantial reason to believe that she wrongfully obtained and refused to return the property of another.
The Board recommended that the Committee on Ethics further review the allegation that Cynthia Martin accepted compensation that was not commensurate with the work she performed, as there is substantial reason to believe that she continued to receive compensation at a time when she was no longer providing services to the House, in violation of House rules and standards of conduct.
Committee Action
The Committee on Ethics made no public statement regarding this matter.
Public Disclosure
Pursuant to section 1(f)(1)(B) of H. Res. 895, on February 3, 2017, the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics voted unanimously to release the OCE’s report and findings concerning former House employee Ms. Cynthia Martin, as the Board determined that release was mandated by the Resolution and House rules.
The moral of the story is:
"Do not be mean to my Sweetie. Period."
Stay tuned...on a mission...
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
